The very very circular VAR Thread

I just saw this.
That wasn't really off topic - even though the topic is by now, months later, rather off topic! But it does seem to point toward the idea that one's suggesting of a change in the kick-off rule in Football isn't quite as absurdly "out there" as Hobo was insinuating.
btw/(which I wasn't advocating - I merely brought it up as one example of the kind of generally pointless thing that could be suggested as a change, in order to form a group of such similarly pointless things) things where there is little benefit involved, but much mental annoyance.....

 

I personally can't wait to see this one happen.

Corner is taken and someone powers in a brilliant high flying header, and just as the teams are about to take the kick-off the ref is told to hold up and then he is instructed by the VAR guys that the goal is invalid and th ecorner kick has to be re-taken because it wasn't inside the defined area when kicked.

(It'll probably happen to us - a Trent AA for one seems incapable of placing the ball inside the quarter circle around the corner flag.)

 

Your point has evolved to where you want shitty handballs that decide crucial matches left in the game, because it's exciting... what a terrible opinion. You realize you can't ever bitch about any bad call ever again; think about how exciting it will be remembering the bad call that cost Liverpool a title!

I don't think you're a stupid person, but you have nonetheless adopted a painfully, mind-numbingly stupid point of view. I urge you to reconsider and be more reasonable.

But it's so exciting zaq! Wouldn't that be sooooo exciting if this exact thing happened to Liverpool on one of TAA's perfectly struck corners?? Think of the years of debate and thrilling examination of the mistake! I mean, nevermind that this will never happen for reasons that have already been thoroughly explained -- not that you'd know, because you're commenting on something you don't understand and haven't undertaken the most basic of efforts to understand by reading the rules.

But yeah, this CANNOT happen. And if the rules were altered enough to allow this to happen, I would be against those particular rules being implemented. But until then, as always, VAR will continue to get games called more correctly at the expense of a couple minutes added on each match. Yet because EPL hasn't joined the other leagues with a more reasonable and modern version of the game, I must sit here and hope a shitty call doesn't alter Liverpool's trophy chances this season... and meanwhile you, I suppose, will sit there and hope a shitty call DOES alter their title chances because of how "exciting" it would be!

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

Before I respond to the rest of that stuff -

I can distinctly recall you saying at some point in this thread that the VAR refs can choose to tell the ref about any infraction of the rules that they spot that they think he missed.
(If that is incorrect, then my point is total rubbish as far as this discussion is concerned - but if that is the case, how in God's name do you come to the conclusion that it could not happen?

Surely the VAR refs are in a better position to spot when the whole ball is placed outside the area it is supposed to be placed in? And surely if they have the authority to alert the referee that he or the linesman has missed this, then it's incumbent on them to do this? Why would it not be?
(Btw/you'll notice that this only usually occurs in its more blatant fashion on the side of the pitch that the linesman for that half is not on. These idiot players seem to be better able to judge it when the linesman happens to be nearby. that in itself being fairly conclusive evidence of deliberate cheating as opposed to wonky eyesight.)

 

No one said anything close to that, this has been clarified over and over again. I'm mystified as to how you could still think this. Maybe this is an overall reading comprehension issue, not just about the rules in general?

I dunno. If you're gonna comment on this stuff, read the rules.

 

\
Well, for the record I don't think you are a stupid person either - although you seem to have spent more time considering this proposition than I have.....
Secondly, for someone who keeps going on about bad logic you are doing a little of it here (and, incidentally, about the kick-off thing) yourself.
A person can validly decide that they like the additional excitement of relying on the human factor and the attendant risk of bad calls that goes with that, and not necessarily be also stating that they will find all examples of the human judgment to be adequate. What I mean there is that it is perfectly reasonable for a person (say me) to not go bonkers over a call like the Maradona or Henry Handball, and to go bonkers over the kind of fake dives of a Ronaldo or Neymar or whoever.
Why do I think that's sound? Because (as already stated, I'm willing to rely on human observation for the purposes of referreing a game - as it works to a reasonably satisfactory level - to wit: no-one was pulling out their hair before VAR, they were just moaning), and in the case of the Maradona and Henry thing I am aware of the FACT that the referee did not see the infraction.
This, I think I am on pretty safe ground positing, is a completely different type of human error to the type where the referee is looking at something and sees the same damn thing you and I did, and then makes a bad judgement, 89th minute at Old Trafford, meaningless 50-50 foul/non-foul, becoming a dangerous free-kick for David Beckham to win the game where we dominated. Against that sort of bad call, I will always be voiceferously angry about that kind of bad call.

But your logic is atrociously askew if you really think I can only State A is okay by me if I don't state B. They are not mutually exclusive with relevance to me.
(They may be - and this is where I think your error is - mutually exclusive in terms of someone who is thinking about trying in good faith to rectify as many rectifiable instances of problems as can be done - but as we have long since discovered, I really don't care that much about that issue. Certainly nowhere near as much as you do. And I don't have to care about it.

Because it's a game. If this were a criminal trial or a political impeachment I would, of course, have the opposite opinion as to tougher scrutiny - why? Because such things matter beyond the mere spectacle of a game's excitement, and a club's accumulations of trophies. To hold my opinion on this is not to hold some "terrible opinion" as you put it,. It's merely to hold the imaginatively valid opinion that there is as much to be gained in the folkloric memory of Maradona and Henry having happened as there is to be gained by rectifying the refereeing of football games past the point where such things can never happen again.

 

You can take on any number of logically-opposed views that you wish, cognitive dissonance is an incredibly powerful thing.

I, for one, can't take a person like that seriously in these matters. Your credibility is shot IMO by referring to shitty handballs that change the outcomes of fixtures as "exciting" but then claiming you want to turn around and moan about a different bad call when it happens to the club you support. That's inconsistent, at best. But I think it should be obvious I'm not here claiming to speak for anyone but myself, for the most part.

 

i'd have to go back and look for it, and I could be mis-remembering - in which case I do apologize - but I thought you responded to a later question in this with that as part of an answer. I even remember at the time thinking WTF - that's the opposite of what you have been telling me for bleeding weeks now ....
But maybe I'm wrong (and was inebriated when reading that particular post). I'll have a re-read of the thread (which will take longer than memorizing the VAR rules but the re-read of the thread will be possible because it will interest me somewhat .....

This might help:
For a brief few mins forget my not reading the rules and explain this: as I think this is where it came from.
You told me that in the case of the double foul in the Serbia game that you assumed that the VAR folks decided that the ref had seen enough and that therefore they didn't need to overrule him. But that if they had thought he hadn't seen that action they could have brought his attention to it as it was a pretty reasonable instance of a callable foul.
Yes?
For the life of me, I do not see how - if they can do that - that they can't also tell him that Trent was too stupid to put even a little tiny part of the round thing inside the quarter circle....

 

They are exciting.

It's not inconsistent. I was supporting England in 86. But I know the ref didn't see that handball. So my avenue for blame and rage is limited if I'm going to remain a rational person. It is not so in the case of a bad decision.
There is a difference between the outcome of a choice resulting in a bad decidion, and an outcome where there is no choice because the referee never saw the problem.
And, unfortunately for your argument, a by-product of that kind of thing IS excitement.

 

My criticism isn't about whether or not it is "exciting"... it's about someone using the idea that it is exciting, even in part, to argue that the sport should continue to miss these bad calls in order to maintain that level of "excitement", but then turning around and being upset by just such a bad call solely because it penalizes their club. That is both wanting the calls to remain and not wanting them to happen depending on the circumstance of them happening, and is inconsistent by definition.

As for your latest example that you think might pertain to VAR (but doesn't), I can only tell you what I've told you to do a dozen times already -- go read the rules on VAR, which make it very clear why the ball's incorrect placement for a corner kick would never be used in a VAR review to disallow a goal.

 

Here's an interesting case study for y'all to argue about...

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018...rns-pivotal-sj-matchday-central?autoplay=true

San Jose scores what looks like a goal to put them up (against the latest league darlings, Atlanta) 4-1. However, after the VAR reviews it, it comes all the way back to a PK for Atlanta for a handball in the box on the other end leading up to the San Jose goal. Atlanta scores the PK (3-2 now) and proceeds to come all the way back to win 4-3 (of course).

 

That's ********ing horrible... that should never, ever happen. It's shit like that that only ********s it up for the people that know what they're doing and want to get rid of more bad calls than not. What a disaster.

 

So are you upset about the call (handball) or the fact that they could go all the way back to the original play that started the lead up to the goal?

 

Going all the way back... that is ludicrous.

I don't think there's any way that can't be considered a handball... but how does the ref miss it, he's staring right ********ing at it? What are they doing in the VAR booth or whatever? It's 30 seconds later when they score the goal. Horrible job by that crew of refs. If this represented VAR, which it doesn't, I would be as against it as zaq and Sam.

 

I'm thinking about it now... and In the end they did get the call right though, now that I'm thinking about it. The optics of it are absolutely awful, but technically I guess it's kind of impressive that they had the stones to wave off the bad goal??

I'm twisted all in knots now!

Either way it just shouldn't happen, VAR booth needs to be better prepared to identify that as a handball much, much more quickly.

 

How did the ref miss that... mind-blowing. Guy basically reaches up and knocks the ball down and ref's eyes are fixed right on it.

Some lovely goals in that match though.

 

Exactly. It (technically) all went according to the rules. They had to wait for the next stoppage in play and that just happened to be San Jose scoring. It is totally chaotic but it's the type of situation that is possible with VAR involved.

 

Waiting for the stoppage in play is the mistake, that shouldn't be in the rules IMO.

If it's a handball, it's a handball. And that was a handball. Stop play immediately, not 30 seconds later.

 

But this person is not upset by them (and is not turning moaning around at the precise moment of one happening because I expect such things to happen now and then) and has stated on many occasions that I am willing to take the vagaries of inconsistent reffing because I'm used to it and (like just about everything) the law of averages will take care of it over time. The historical examples I point out only to illustrate that this position allows for some truly crazy moments which are part of the fun of having lived and which VAR will forever put a cease to. The thing underlined above would be, as you termed it last week, cognitive dissonance, but I don't in fact hold opposing desires about things that it is difficult for a referee to have seen. (Where a referee gives a call under some kind of duress, having seen exactly what I saw, is to my mind a different problem entirely. The Old Trafford, RedGob effect, etc)

Which, given last weekend, brings up a very interesting point for you. If you (a man who has stated that you want the (important) calls made right - basically it offends some principle in you that they aren't made right when they could be with VAR) happen to find yourself fortunate enough to see LFC win the Premiership by 1 point at the end of this season, and know that the implementation of VAR would have (95% likely) sat us two points less and thus not winning it, won't you be operating under a state of cognitive dissonance??
There is NO possible argument you can make that would say that under VAR Tottenham would not have been awarded a penalty last Saturday.

A better question - did you want it awarded?

 

As for your latest example that you think might pertain to VAR (but doesn't), I can only tell you what I've told you to do a dozen times already -- go read the rules on VAR, which make it very clear why the ball's incorrect placement for a corner kick would never be used in a VAR review to disallow a goal.

I'd be inclined here to ask the guys who wrote the VAR rules, what right they have to come up with such a restriction?

One of the problems with the question "how did the ref miss it?" is that we don't know if that was the moment the ref sneezed, wiped at a mosquito, blinked, twitched, etc ....
we just don't know why, becuase there is likely a reason (usually).

By the way - a simple fix to help a situation like this would be to write into the rules that any accrued advantage in play that is gained before the penalty is called back is given. and the play starts from there.
So, a throw-in, a free-kick, a goal or another penalty all would stand as the point of restart after the first penalty.
However, this would bring up the highly zany situation that the same team could also conceivably end up getting awarded two penalties at the same time.
What a hoot....

 

Absolutely. If we must put up with VAR, then the play and the excitment stream need to be curtailed by the change always at the earliest possible moment.